It is very rational to allow children to have access to condoms. In a perfect world all our children would wait until marriage to have sex. In reality children are having sex faster than we can talk to them about the birds and the bees. We ought to be educating children about sex according to their age group. Here's what were facing....."an average 86 per cent of respondents, between ages 10-14, know that the disease was contracted and spread during sexual intercourse, only 34 per cent of them used a condom the last time they had sex."......there's not enough information to determine if the 34% of them actually using condoms is because of fear of embarrassment or limited access but the fact is children are having sex at a early age. These children need to have access to condoms to prevent Stds, and possibly pregnancies. If there was some unethical law requiring a minimum age, then children are going to have sex anyway and will b extremely at risk of pregnancy and std's

Dr. Eugene Beresin, a professor at Harvard University and director of training in child and adolescent psychiatry said this;.......

"If kids are taught and have access to counseling, there's a better chance of abstinence being maintained and the risk of STDs is diminished," he said.

But, he said, condom distribution should not be the "flagship" of sex education.

"Let's face it," he said. "You can't stop kids from having sex if they want to. It would be great if they hold off, but we can't stop it. What we can do is improve responsibility. So while we have to be thoughtful about randomly distributing condoms in the first grades, sex behavior and its consequences are part of the lives of young teens through young adulthood."

Some people may say that giving condoms to children promotes promiscuity. First of all the child's going to be scared to go to the counselor in the first place so its not like schools are handing out condoms like lollipops. It’s not like along with their milk and school lunch, kids get a Trojan condom on their tray. That’s not what’s happening. Their only giving students condoms whom are sexually active and request them from a counselor. They are talking to them, educating them, and discussing the responsibilities of having sex before there giving these out. Witch is very reasonable. Allowing access to condoms will not promote sex no more than talking about suicide and awareness promotes suicide.To be honest, if your 10 or 11 year old is going to the school nurse to ask for a condom to have sex…you’ve pretty much already lost the first battle. Wouldn’t you rather know your “Little angel” has somewhere to go for protection if they want to hide it from you? Because the truth is, if kids really want to do it…they will do it.

Conclusion

Fact: Teaching abstinence doesn't guarantee abstinence, children are having sex at early ages, Girls start puberty early as 8 y.o,The pro of this debate is very rational because If we don't allow children to have access to condoms then besides the fact of there brain not making the best decisions at that age and their hormones going crazy, there constantly "in heat" so there going to have sex regardless of if you teach them about it or not. Knowing that we cant prevent someone from having sex, We ought to give them the tools to protect themselves from the possible life changing dangers of having sex. So it is rational to allow children of any age to buy condoms.

Child- A person between birth and puberty.Puberty- Thestageofadolescenceinwhichanindividualbecomes physiologicallycapableofsexualreproduction.Birth- Theemergenceandseparationofoffspringfromthebody ofthemother.Kid- A child.

Using these definitions, it is safe to assume that once a child hits puberty they are no longer considered a child. Therefore, because puberty is when an individual becomes capable of sexual reproduction, it is irrational for children to be allowed to buy contraceptives or condoms.

Age of ConsentThe age of consent in the united states ranges from ages 16-18 (the world average is 16.) Having sex below this age of consent is illegal. Supplying condoms can make kids more sexual(not neccessarily promoting sex, but putting the idea of sex in their heads), this will want them to have sex or at least watch pornography. (I noticed my opponent won a debate regarding the detrimental effects of pornography, so it is not hard to see why pornography is a negative aspect of this.) Because children are virtually all below the age of consent, this can create major legal problems. Why should a store let children buy condoms when they are not legally old enough to have sex. The age limit to drink alcohol is 21 in the U.S. so is it rational to sell alcohol to children? No, because it is illegal for them to drink it.

Decreased use of condoms in school studiesA person becomes more sexual once they hit puberty. This is due to hormones and body changes. Here is a quote from a scientific study where 10 schools made condoms available to the students through vending machines, and baskets in school clinics.

"The percentage of sexually experienced students who used a condom the last time they had sex decreased significantly"

This study shows that supplying students with condoms actually decreases the amount that they use condoms.

ConclusionIt is not rational for children to be allowed to buy condoms, because children are incapable of sexual reproduction. It is irrational for stores to sell condoms to kids. This is because the children are not legally old enough to have sex.

I apologize on behalf of my opponent for falsifying definitions. Since these are false I wonder what else about his case is false? Lets see he attempts to say giving children condoms has been shown to decrease usage but his source is unfound. Also Unless they surveyed every single child whom was given condoms from vending machines( witch school don't allow) witch is logically impossible then it is a falsified claim either by him or the surveyors. Think about it, how can someone track every single condom purchased from a vending machine? Also this is countered by the fact that condoms are only given by schools through the counselors after talking with the student. So his entire last contention is a fallacy.

Moving on he says your not a child once you reach adolescence. judging from the definition provided a person doesn't reach full growth until there considered an adult witch is beyond adolescence.( also in my opinion your still a child unless you have a car and a house...lol).( to my opponent I politely ask for you not to submit any other definitions since you falsified the last couple please).lastly the age of adolescence is commonly accepted to be from 12-14. Obviously by the examples of children engaging in sex before the age of adolescence that I have given below being 10 and 11 obviously children are having sex.

Age of consent

Yes there is the age of consent but obviously children are having sex below the age of consent as early as 11 or 12( or in my case 10)......http://www.iol.co.za...

http://old.post-gazette.com... as I have proven in my case, we cant stop other people from having sex under the age of consent. (Because children experience sexual development before the age of consent I personally believe the age of consent should be increased. But that's another debate.) Since we cant stop them from having sex then e should do more damage by disallowing them to use condoms. If we ban them from using condoms then were going to have more std's and children having children. Though we cant stop the problem we ought to take some steps to protect them and ourselves from having to care for there children. If we ban condom use for them then we will only add fuel to the fire. My opponent claims that providing condoms makes kids more sexual. I've already tackled this issue in my speech. Giving children condoms is no more risky than teaching suicide awareness promotes suicide. Lastly giving children condoms doesn't mean there going to go home and watch pornography. Do you buy condoms and then directly go home and watch porn no. Usually if you buy a condom the intention is to have sex. and not watch porn.

Seeing as my opponents case is defeated lets go to my case

kids are having sex and need protection

As I stated earlier.... "If there was some unethical law requiring a minimum age, then children are going to have sex anyway and will be extremely at risk of pregnancy and std's".....I have been proven correct because of the evidence that kids are having sex below the age of consent, and lets be honest here kids having sex usually are not going to get caught. We cant stop kids from having sex and if we deny them protection then there is an increased risk that they will catch a std or create a baby in witch the parents will be taking care of.

You obviously misread what I had said about my definitions. Yes they come from http://dictionary.reference.com.... But as I said, they came from the medical dictionary. If you scroll down when you arrive on that page, then you can easily see the medical dictionary term and definition that I provided. If you would like me to source my terms properly then here it is.child. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary. Retrieved April 06, 2012, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com...

As you can see, I used The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, which I found using the original link I had provided. My definitions and terms are valid and correct and my opponent did not rebut my arguments properly, therefore my argument still stands, and I believe I have won this debate already.

In my argument that there is a decreased use of condoms in school contraceptive programs, I provided my source properly. My opponent obviously did not read my arguments thoroughly and did not look at my source. I shall provide it again so it is easier for him to understand.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...If he reads this study, then he should realize why his entire rebuttal against my argument is wrong.

My opponent said that ""giving children condoms is no more risky than teaching suicide awareness promotes suicide." You have misunderstood my argument. Children receiving condoms does not necessarily mean that they will increase in sexual activity. What I meant was that condoms are for sex, and when you receive a condom the thing on your mind is sex. If these kids can't find someone else to have sex with, then they may resort to pornography. Teaching suicide awareness does not promote suicide, I agree with you. But teaching suicide awareness makes you think about depression and sadness. It doesn't necessarily make you depressed, but it will make depression linger on your mind, just as condoms will make sex linger on your mind.

We are not debating on whether or not counselors giving sexually active students condoms is justified. We are debating on is it rational to allow children of any age to buy condoms. It is not. My opponent did not read my sources and arguments properly, he has ignored my main arguments, and he has not rebutted properly to my main argument regarding the definition. With the debate over rationality in allowing children to buy condoms, using my definitions, a child has not reached the capability of sexual reproduction and therefore has no reason for contraceptives or condoms. The children who have had sex that he mentioned have started puberty and are teenagers. Therefore they are not children, and are not related to this debate.

My opponent has not validly rebutted my main argument which is the backbone to my debate. Therefore, Vote con.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, and would happily debate him again, as long as he properly reads my arguments.SeelTheMan

Once you start wanting to have sex, it's natural and there's a high rate of population growth at the moment so probably a good idea apart from obvious controversy that would be caused.

None the less the more pressing problem is getting contraception available in places like india where due to religion (Mannn i hate religion) and lack of education, population is going through the roof.

Reasons for voting decision: This was a pretty clear Pro win based on the argument that kids will already have sex anyways and that handing out condoms will not change anything. Pro proves that handing them out/selling them promotes responsibility and safer sex

Reasons for voting decision: As far as arguments go, I don't think both sides effectively portrayed their arguments, but that is really just my opinion. I gave Con conduct since Pro misread Con's argument.